4 ms·

Nobody should be acqui-hiring our government.

by Retra 11y ago

maxerickson 11y ago
Do you want to pay experts to not work for industry? Or do you not want experts to ever work for government? Those are the outcomes I see if you start making a lot of rules about what government employees can do next.
- Retra 11y ago
  So you think there is no possible middle-ground? That it is fundamentally impossible to determine whether someone is exploiting their position for personal gain or simply being rewarded for their expertise on incidental matters? >do you not want experts to ever work for government? Do you think the government can't offer anything? Give someone a free education and pay them well. It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement. This is just one option among many. Corruption is a hard problem, but it doesn't do any good at all to pretend it can't be effectively mitigated.
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    Would you sign an industry-wide, lifetime non-compete clause in exchange for employment? If not, why not?
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      who is talking about a _lifetime_ non-compete clause?
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        What else would "It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement." mean?
        saganus 11y ago
        Maybe "can't work in the industry" could mean only to avoid work where there was a direct relationship previous to the retirement? For example, let's say a Nestle competitor that doesn't have any stakes in that particular area of influence of said gov. official, then there's no issue. I know this would be hard to put in practice, but then again, the benefits should be enough right?
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - Retra 11y ago
      Why would you ask such a narrow question? That is (a) not the deal I suggested, and (b) not the only deal one could offer. But to answer your question: yes. If the pay, benefits, and opportunities were attractive enough, I would.
      - sokoloff 11y ago
        OK. That's how I interpreted your sentence: "It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement." Which raises all kinds of practical concerns. What if you study and love a particular field, start working for the government, but can't stand working for the government once you get there? What if the government downsizes and eliminates your position? What if you want to move someplace for family or other personal reasons and can't take your gov't job with you? What if you get fired?
        Retra 11y ago
        That would all depend on the nature of the agreement, obviously. If the goal is to prevent corruption, you only have to prevent future employment by those who are serviced by your governmental position. Nothing about that necessitates blanket removal from working in a field. This really sounds like you're trying to engage in an ungenerous argument. Don't try to nitpick everything I didn't say as though you don't have enough brains to think it through yourself. Instead of trying to win an argument, you should focus on addressing the problem. Because, again, saying that we should just accept corruption as unavoidable is about the most abhorrent political position one could take.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        saying that we should just accept corruption as unavoidable is about the most abhorrent political position one could take Has anybody said this during this discussion?
        sokoloff 11y ago
        Not trying to win an argument, as I fully concede that I don't have a solution to this fundamentally difficult problem. I specifically want experts working in government, not lifetime bureaucrats. IMO, that demands a rotation of experts into and out of government service, because in many fields your expertise and relevance will atrophy meaningfully in just a handful of years. I want the White House CTO to have genuine, relevant (read: recent) industry expertise. I want the head of the FDA to have genuine scientific background and credentials. I want the head of the SEC to have Wall St/other finance/trading expertise. I think we end up with more problems having career politicians and all the associated perturbed incentives that that brings than we have from the frequent appearance (and occasional reality) of corruption as players cycle from industry/business to government posts and back. I further believe that most of us get the highest performance from on-going focus in a relatively narrow field and applying oneself in the same field (especially if you have interest and passion) is good for the person and good for society. I genuinely read your original comment to be suggesting a lifetime of work in government with no possibility to return to the private sector in an industry position related to your government post. My apologies if you meant something else than what I inferred, but my reading and reaction was genuine. I'm sorry you felt nitpicked over it. (I also believe that, given the need for relevant expertise in government that some amount of corruption is an inevitable byproduct, more than offset by the benefits we get from not having career book-learners (or worse, politically favored know-nothings) in positions of such power. We need to deal with that corruption as we find it, and create large disincentives for proven corruption, but some amount is unavoidable in a system that employs tens of millions of flawed humans in positions of power.)
- will_brown 11y ago
  I know you are talking about a bigger proposition at this point. But in this instance as a Gov employee Zimmerman literally: 1. Didn't perform a mandatory permit review for 15 years; 2. Started 15 year old over due review and worked on it for 4 years and just simply stopped without documenting why the review was stop; 3. Thereafter almost immediately took a job with the company who benefited from this incompetence (apparently under the guise Zimmerman rather than being totally incompetent is an expert); and 4. When finally questioned about why the delay, why the lack of documentation...simply answers I was busy fighting forest fires. In short, You are goddamn right I want "rules" for accountability.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    You are making the rather large assumption here that doing this review was actually a good use of his time. I don't see where that has been demonstrated. The article does mention that the USFS has limited resources to direct towards these reviews, so it's pretty possible that ignoring a review he didn't think was a big deal was reasonable.
    - will_brown 11y ago
      I'm not making an assumption (large or small) that the review was a good use of his time...it was his fucking job. You may say I am making a large assumption about that as well, except it is evidenced by the fact he began the review (15 years late) and worked on it for 4 years. I further guess what you are saying is Government employees despite having job responsibilities and duties should have complete and total independent discretion as to what their time is best spent doing...makes sense they are the experts after all.
      - maxerickson 11y ago
        Of course it was part of his job, but I'm not going to take 6 paragraphs from some reporter and assume that I have a crystal clear picture of the entire story.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
It would be tons more dangerous to hire an unqualified person, not to mention probably easier to bribe and fool them as well as they aren't experienced in the political dirty tricks governments and large companies engage in. I'd rather have a "stooge" as HN and reddit called Tom Wheeler for a very long time at the FCC, than some random idiot who, say, watches Fox News all day or reads HuffPost all day and completely lacks any sophistication in how government works. The very same people who want outsiders also don't understand why third party candidates they often support end up being racists or fascists or communists. There's real value in the mainstream - that's why its the mainstream. I wish more young people understood that.

Nobody should be acqui-hiring our government.

by Retra 11y ago

Nobody should be acqui-hiring our government.

Do you want to pay experts to not work for industry? Or do you not want experts to ever work for government? Those are the outcomes I see if you start making a lot of rules about what government employees can do next.

Retra 11y ago
So you think there is no possible middle-ground? That it is fundamentally impossible to determine whether someone is exploiting their position for personal gain or simply being rewarded for their expertise on incidental matters? >do you not want experts to ever work for government? Do you think the government can't offer anything? Give someone a free education and pay them well. It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement. This is just one option among many. Corruption is a hard problem, but it doesn't do any good at all to pretend it can't be effectively mitigated.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  Would you sign an industry-wide, lifetime non-compete clause in exchange for employment? If not, why not?
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    who is talking about a _lifetime_ non-compete clause?
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      What else would "It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement." mean?
      - saganus 11y ago
        Maybe "can't work in the industry" could mean only to avoid work where there was a direct relationship previous to the retirement? For example, let's say a Nestle competitor that doesn't have any stakes in that particular area of influence of said gov. official, then there's no issue. I know this would be hard to put in practice, but then again, the benefits should be enough right?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - Retra 11y ago
    Why would you ask such a narrow question? That is (a) not the deal I suggested, and (b) not the only deal one could offer. But to answer your question: yes. If the pay, benefits, and opportunities were attractive enough, I would.
    - sokoloff 11y ago
      OK. That's how I interpreted your sentence: "It doesn't matter if they can't work in the industry afterward; let them retire and live off their retirement." Which raises all kinds of practical concerns. What if you study and love a particular field, start working for the government, but can't stand working for the government once you get there? What if the government downsizes and eliminates your position? What if you want to move someplace for family or other personal reasons and can't take your gov't job with you? What if you get fired?
      - Retra 11y ago
        That would all depend on the nature of the agreement, obviously. If the goal is to prevent corruption, you only have to prevent future employment by those who are serviced by your governmental position. Nothing about that necessitates blanket removal from working in a field. This really sounds like you're trying to engage in an ungenerous argument. Don't try to nitpick everything I didn't say as though you don't have enough brains to think it through yourself. Instead of trying to win an argument, you should focus on addressing the problem. Because, again, saying that we should just accept corruption as unavoidable is about the most abhorrent political position one could take.
        maxerickson 11y ago
        saying that we should just accept corruption as unavoidable is about the most abhorrent political position one could take Has anybody said this during this discussion?
        sokoloff 11y ago
        Not trying to win an argument, as I fully concede that I don't have a solution to this fundamentally difficult problem. I specifically want experts working in government, not lifetime bureaucrats. IMO, that demands a rotation of experts into and out of government service, because in many fields your expertise and relevance will atrophy meaningfully in just a handful of years. I want the White House CTO to have genuine, relevant (read: recent) industry expertise. I want the head of the FDA to have genuine scientific background and credentials. I want the head of the SEC to have Wall St/other finance/trading expertise. I think we end up with more problems having career politicians and all the associated perturbed incentives that that brings than we have from the frequent appearance (and occasional reality) of corruption as players cycle from industry/business to government posts and back. I further believe that most of us get the highest performance from on-going focus in a relatively narrow field and applying oneself in the same field (especially if you have interest and passion) is good for the person and good for society. I genuinely read your original comment to be suggesting a lifetime of work in government with no possibility to return to the private sector in an industry position related to your government post. My apologies if you meant something else than what I inferred, but my reading and reaction was genuine. I'm sorry you felt nitpicked over it. (I also believe that, given the need for relevant expertise in government that some amount of corruption is an inevitable byproduct, more than offset by the benefits we get from not having career book-learners (or worse, politically favored know-nothings) in positions of such power. We need to deal with that corruption as we find it, and create large disincentives for proven corruption, but some amount is unavoidable in a system that employs tens of millions of flawed humans in positions of power.)
will_brown 11y ago
I know you are talking about a bigger proposition at this point. But in this instance as a Gov employee Zimmerman literally: 1. Didn't perform a mandatory permit review for 15 years; 2. Started 15 year old over due review and worked on it for 4 years and just simply stopped without documenting why the review was stop; 3. Thereafter almost immediately took a job with the company who benefited from this incompetence (apparently under the guise Zimmerman rather than being totally incompetent is an expert); and 4. When finally questioned about why the delay, why the lack of documentation...simply answers I was busy fighting forest fires. In short, You are goddamn right I want "rules" for accountability.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  You are making the rather large assumption here that doing this review was actually a good use of his time. I don't see where that has been demonstrated. The article does mention that the USFS has limited resources to direct towards these reviews, so it's pretty possible that ignoring a review he didn't think was a big deal was reasonable.
  - will_brown 11y ago
    I'm not making an assumption (large or small) that the review was a good use of his time...it was his fucking job. You may say I am making a large assumption about that as well, except it is evidenced by the fact he began the review (15 years late) and worked on it for 4 years. I further guess what you are saying is Government employees despite having job responsibilities and duties should have complete and total independent discretion as to what their time is best spent doing...makes sense they are the experts after all.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      Of course it was part of his job, but I'm not going to take 6 paragraphs from some reporter and assume that I have a crystal clear picture of the entire story.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

It would be tons more dangerous to hire an unqualified person, not to mention probably easier to bribe and fool them as well as they aren't experienced in the political dirty tricks governments and large companies engage in. I'd rather have a "stooge" as HN and reddit called Tom Wheeler for a very long time at the FCC, than some random idiot who, say, watches Fox News all day or reads HuffPost all day and completely lacks any sophistication in how government works. The very same people who want outsiders also don't understand why third party candidates they often support end up being racists or fascists or communists. There's real value in the mainstream - that's why its the mainstream. I wish more young people understood that.